Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ff m 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival

Entirely unreferenced advertish OR/promotional piece, which exaggerates and predicts the future. I considered wikifying this to help clean it up, but the more I looked at it the more I was convinced that nothing was salvageable. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to nomination withdrawn, in light of sources provided by Phil, and the good cleanup the article has received since being listed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ While there are lots of google hits, there are zero on GNews, which isn't a good sign. The festivals own website only has reports from the Jakarta Post as far as I can see, again not good. There's a dead link to a BBC report on the 2006 version of the festival - if that were verifiable it'd help a bit. Don't know enough about jazz to know if the performers list is inherently notable or not. MadScot (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and not notable Annette46 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above comments might look great at delete discussions outside of the Indonesian context - however seeing this is actually listed at the Indonesian project - they show an interesting approach to notability issues. Satu Suro 05:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily trimmable and wikifiable and easily kept - just because it has had a lot of material added does not make it a problem. I would argue that it is not OR, and is notable - and simply because it does not fit some concepts - it can and should be cleaned up and kept - from the perspective of the Indonesia project it is both reliable and notable - its just the adding editors have not understood what constitutes a properly constructed article. Satu Suro 05:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is salvageble and wikified, all it needs some refs and it should not offend anyone - to say it is not notable shows no understanding of the event or Jakarta - please consider this - if you dont understand - during the New Order Indonesia - Jakarta held the largest scottish highland games outside of Scotland - so the large Jazz event - is on a par with the similarly disjunctive highland games of 15 years ago - large musical events in Jakarta are - even if it is hard to imagine - large and notable. BTW for Jakarta Post - it is a reliable and V level source, GNews is not relevant, and the artist list is pointless Satu Suro 09:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a major music festival in Indonesia attracting acts from around the world, considerable local interest and creating traffic jams around the venue. If this is deleted, then so should Glastonbury Festival. Davidelit (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At that level of notability it ought to be possible to get some decent references, though. The Glasonbury article has numerous references to print and broadcast media covering the event. Now, I think they are all UK sources, so if this festival just has local/national coverage that's obviously fine. But when I checked the official site, as mentioned above, I only found one local newspaper covering it. If the requisite sources can be found I'd be happy to reverse my vote (that was why it was a "weak" vote in the first place) but right now there's nothing, and not for want of looking. MadScot (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole problem with the global context of xfd is the assumption of easy grab bag google hits to verify subjects and refs - sometimes quite notable subjects get deleted because of this - where they should not - sometimes english language news sources get lazy with significant events in Indonesia and dont bother to report them - all the easier for deletionists :( Satu Suro 01:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources in any language outside of local coverage? The problem is that local coverage will provide great detail about a 4H petting zoo any Sunday afternoon in my little town, including the names and pictures of every kid who got their face painted and all of the shapes that Dipsy the clown made with balloons. It is impossible to judge what is only covered as a typical local interest and what is truly notable, without providing sources that are independent of the event and published outside of the local area. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Contrary to what is stated above Google News does find sources, as long as you click on "all dates" to look beyond the last month[1]. As well as coverage from the Jakarta Post these include international coverage (which is not necessary for notability but makes it more obvious) such as the Malaysia Star [2], the International Herald Tribune [3], the Jamaica Observer [4] and the New Straits Times [5], and that's without looking beyond English language coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep Thank you Phil, that's precisely what I was hoping someone would do when I made my vote 'weak'. And a million times more useful than someone simply asserting that we silly English speakers don't understand Indonesia. I would have expected that the organisations own website press section would have listed these, but maybe there's some local issue that prevents them citing out-of-country sources? MadScot (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.